|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 21, 2009 0:32:00 GMT -5
Here is a logical syllogism:
- Those without moral knowledge are without sin (Jn. 9:41; Jas 4:17) - Babies are without moral knowledge (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16) - Therefore babies have no sin.
Jesus said that if you are blind, you would have no sin. Babies are morally blind because their conscience is not yet developed. Therefore, according to Jesus, babies have no sin.
Consider another one:
- Sin is the choice to disobey the moral law (1 Jn. 3:4). - Infants haven't made any choices yet (Rom. 9:11). - Therefore infants have no sin.
All this logic backs up what the Bible says, that men are sinners by choice: Gen. 6:12, Ex. 32:7, Deut. 9:12, Deut. 32:5, Jdg. 2:19, Hos. 9:9, Ps. 14:2-3, Isa. 53:6, Ecc. 7:29, Rom. 3:23.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Aug 23, 2009 9:45:50 GMT -5
- Sin is the choice to disobey the moral law (1 Jn. 3:4). Devils advocate here: What do you tell people who say that sin is also a state of being? Or sin being something that it really isn't? 2Corinth 5:21a For he has made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us;Jesus became sin for us because we were sin before him? My pastor says it is a "dominion", since we were under the bondage of it; this is true only to a point though. If you have a wrong understanding of this true dominion of sin, then sin is something that it really isn't. My whole point is that if you have a wrong definition and understanding of sin, then it will be very easy to think that this so called "sin nature" &/or "original sin" is true.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 23, 2009 15:08:35 GMT -5
I would say that God's law condemms all sin, yet God's law says nothing about a persons body or nature. Therefore our body or nature cannot be sin. Sin is violation of God's law and God's law tells us what type of choices to make, not what type of body to be born with or what type of nature to inherit.
Jesus was made a sin offering for us. To be "made sin" means to be made a sin-offering. Jesus Christ was not made a sinner, neither was his nature or body turned into sinfulness. Jesus offered himself without spot or blemish unto God. If Jesus became sinful, His atonement could not be acceptable to God. Jesus needed to be innocent and perfect when He was on the cross, or else his death could not atone for our sins.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Aug 23, 2009 16:09:54 GMT -5
I would say that God's law condemns all sin, yet God's law says nothing about a persons body or nature. Therefore our body or nature cannot be sin. Sin is violation of God's law and God's law tells us what type of choices to make, not what type of body to be born with or what type of nature to inherit. Jesus was made a sin offering for us. To be "made sin" means to be made a sin-offering. Jesus Christ was not made a sinner, neither was his nature or body turned into sinfulness. Jesus offered himself without spot or blemish unto God. If Jesus became sinful, His atonement could not be acceptable to God. Jesus needed to be innocent and perfect when He was on the cross, or else his death could not atone for our sins. You're preaching to the choir, I was just testing you. I knew that you knew the correct interp. However, I would like your take on Scriptures as these: Lev 4:13 If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands, even though the community is unaware of the matter, they are guilty.Lev 5:17 If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands, even though he does not know it(sin from ignorance, inadvertently, by mistake) , he is guilty and will be held responsible. Since sin is only intentional, willful choice, how & why are they guilty in these kind of Scriptures?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 23, 2009 17:09:46 GMT -5
1. The Israelites were under obligation to a vast amount of laws, many of which are not written on our conscience, and therefore the letter of the law could be violated in ignorance. I doubt if many of them had memorized ALL of the laws. Suppose they memorized all of them, except for one, they could then transgress that law in ignorance. It is possible that they could do something which they didn't know was forbidden by the law.
2. Because of the nature of those laws, they could be violated in ignorance. For example the law says do not eat certain foods, but suppose you eat a stew that has a forbidden food mixed in it and you were not aware. This would be a "sin" or transgression done in ignorance. It is possible that they could touch something unclean without knowing it, or eat something that was forbidden without knowing it. This is a transgression of the law, but there is no fault with their heart because it was not deliberate.
3. Leviticus 5:3 says that "when he knoweth of it, THEN he shall be guilty". Leviticus 4:14 says that they are only obligated to make an atonement "when the sin... is known..."
4. The Israelites could transgress their laws without knowing it. But how could we, who are only subject to the moral law, violate it in ignorance? God has written in his law on our hearts. How could ANY of the Ten Commandments be broken by accident or mistake? You can't accidentally committ adultery or mistakenly murder. That is why the New Testament always describes sin as an intentional choice. Jesus said if we were blind we would have no sin and James says that sin is when we know to do right and we do not do it.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Aug 23, 2009 17:40:37 GMT -5
My take on it is that they were guilty of neglect. They could have known the law, which is readily available to be known. If they would have taken the time to know the law, they wouldn't have transgressed it.
Ignorance is no excuse. If we do not know the law (of our local & state laws) and we brake a law, we can not tell the judge, "oops, sorry, I didn't know there was a law". We will still be obligated to pay the fine or time in jail. We were negligent to know the law, which is readily available to be known.
Example: You're driving down a road which has speed limit sign posted, but you do not take care to notice the sign; and you exceed the limit. You could have known the law, which is readily available to be known, but you neglected to take the time to know the speed limit. You can not say, "oops, sorry officer, I didn't see the sign". You will still be obligated to pay the fine.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 24, 2009 15:01:13 GMT -5
"willingly are ignorant" 2 Peter 3:5
This is what I said in my booklet on free will and conscience:
If a man sins a sin of ignorance (Lev. 4:13), doing that which “ought not to be done” (Lev. 4:2), “he shall be guilty” only “when he knoweth of it” (Lev. 5:3), and is held responsible only when it is “known” (Lev. 4:14). There is also the sin of being willingly ignorant (2 Pet. 3:5). One is willingly ignorant when knowledge is available and attainable, within the reach of an individual, yet that person willingly refuses to attain it, refusing to reach out for it. Such knowledge is within the realm of attainability (attainable because of that person’s ability), yet it is refused and ignored. Such a sin of ignorance is truly the sin of ignoring the attainable truth. This was, no doubt, connected to the case of the Israelite in Leviticus who could sin a sin of ignorance when knowledge and revelation was made available by God to all of Israel.
|
|
|
Post by trusty on Sept 24, 2009 23:48:10 GMT -5
- Sin is the choice to disobey the moral law (1 Jn. 3:4). Devils advocate here: What do you tell people who say that sin is also a state of being? Or sin being something that it really isn't? 2Corinth 5:21a For he has made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us;Jesus became sin for us because we were sin before him? My pastor says it is a "dominion", since we were under the bondage of it; this is true only to a point though. If you have a wrong understanding of this true dominion of sin, then sin is something that it really isn't. My whole point is that if you have a wrong definition and understanding of sin, then it will be very easy to think that this so called "sin nature" &/or "original sin" is true. Yeah, that verse comes up a lot when I talk about the nonsense of original sin. Kind of like Psalm 51:5 They think "became sin" means Jesus metaphysically transformed into some substance called "sin". And when I put it to them like that, they realize they are being buffoons. Jesus became the sin bearer...it was just an expression.
|
|